guild icon
Mayflower District Court
#awesomefriend_d-v-robertrosenthal
This is the start of #awesomefriend_d-v-robertrosenthal channel.
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-07-21 12:17 p.m.
New Case
Case Type
civil
Case Number
CV-353-25
clerkFlow pinned a message to this channel.2026-01-18 03:02 p.m.
shah_khaled ᴘᴄ
shah_khaled ᴘᴄ 2025-07-21 12:17 p.m.
@singhski
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-07-21 12:21 p.m.
Channel Permissions Synced
Permissions have been synced to Chambers of Hon’ble Judge Singhski.
singhskisinghski used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-07-21 01:31 p.m.
Case Modified
@singhski has added @meowiitten to the case channel.
singhski
singhski 2025-07-21 01:31 p.m.
@meowiitten Hello.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-21 01:42 p.m.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-21 01:42 p.m.
@singhski Summon plz
singhski
singhski 2025-07-21 01:42 p.m.
@meowiitten Send google drive link so I can attach to summons
singhski
singhski 2025-07-22 07:47 p.m.
@AlbertBlackwell Draft summons
SinghskiSinghski
@AlbertBlackwell Draft summons
AlbertBlackwell
AlbertBlackwell 2025-07-24 06:48 p.m.
sent
AlbertBlackwell
AlbertBlackwell 2025-07-24 06:49 p.m.
@michael
singhskisinghski used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-07-26 07:17 a.m.
Case Modified
@singhski has added @michael to the case channel.
singhskisinghski used
/summon
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-07-26 07:18 a.m.
:white_check_mark: Successfully summoned @actxrz(edited)
singhskisinghski used
/summon
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-07-26 07:18 a.m.
:white_check_mark: Successfully summoned @dero(edited)
singhskisinghski used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-07-26 07:18 a.m.
Case Modified
@singhski has added @actxrz to the case channel.
singhskisinghski used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-07-26 07:18 a.m.
Case Modified
@singhski has added @dero to the case channel.
singhski
singhski 2025-07-26 07:18 a.m.
@actxrz You know the drill
AlbertBlackwell
AlbertBlackwell 2025-07-28 02:55 p.m.
@singhski when is response due
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-29 09:22 p.m.
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED PURSUANT TO RULE 13(b) OF THE MAYFLOWER RULES FOR CIVIL PROCEDURE

View the motion [here](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QdpQBhnFA3ssiucuLVfI-h-OcFi2IrFP/view?usp=sharing).
-# cc; @singhski@meowiitten@AlbertBlackwell
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-29 09:23 p.m.
cant file on website cuz im not added to it as a party
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-29 09:24 p.m.
but pls know i would do so for u, ur honor(edited)
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-29 09:24 p.m.
if i could
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-29 09:24 p.m.
:🤗:
actxrzactxrz
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED PURSUANT TO RULE 13(b) OF THE MAYFLOWER RULES FOR CIVIL PROCEDURE View the motion...
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-29 09:25 p.m.
Can you fix the margins
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-29 09:25 p.m.
This is not legible
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-29 09:26 p.m.
if the all so honorable singhski orders
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-29 09:26 p.m.
i think this is an older template
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-29 10:41 p.m.
@actxrz I think it would help if you saw the video
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-29 10:44 p.m.
ok the truck was unlawfully parked
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-29 10:45 p.m.
Broe how is that cause to smash the windows and then search it under the statute
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-29 10:45 p.m.
Sunk cost delusion because he poured so much time into the motion when he could've just asked me for the video
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-29 10:45 p.m.
Now he is doubling down
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-29 10:51 p.m.
js wanna establish this rq
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-29 10:51 p.m.
is his vehicle unlawfully parked, yes or no?
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-29 10:51 p.m.
are both tires of the same axle up on the sidewalk
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-29 10:53 p.m.
answers, yes.
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-29 10:53 p.m.
breaking the windows is not gratuitous
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-29 10:54 p.m.
its functionally required to move a vehicle thats unlawfully parked and to also search the contents of said vehicle
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-29 11:57 p.m.
Pipe down alright you'll get your reply
actxrzactxrz
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED PURSUANT TO RULE 13(b) OF THE MAYFLOWER RULES FOR CIVIL PROCEDURE View the motion...
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 12:27 a.m.
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
@singhski @actxrz
meowiittenmeowiitten
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS @singhski @actxrz
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 04:37 a.m.
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 04:39 a.m.
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 06:50 a.m.
Please pleaaaahse pleuhese.
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 06:51 a.m.
I will finisih writing my opinion within the next few hours
actxrzactxrz
Click to see attachment.
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 06:52 a.m.
and with MTDs we construe the facts in a light most favorable to the plaintiff
actxrzactxrz
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED PURSUANT TO RULE 13(b) OF THE MAYFLOWER RULES FOR CIVIL PROCEDURE View the motion...
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 09:20 a.m.
Never do this again but I will allow it this time
UserUser
Message could not be loaded.
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 09:55 a.m.
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 09:55 a.m.
"For all these reasons, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and all claims are dismissed with prejudice. Judgment shall be entered in favor of Defendant Rosenthal."
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 09:56 a.m.
Cc: @meowiitten @actxrz
SinghskiSinghski
Click to see attachment.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 11:23 a.m.
It wasn’t about the administrative exception at all
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 11:23 a.m.
Also both you and the government assume that he had the reasonable cause necessary for the search
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 11:24 a.m.
My response was about how Burger has nothing to do with what happened
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 11:24 a.m.
But I will appeal(edited)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 11:25 a.m.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 11:25 a.m.
This part for example
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 11:26 a.m.
I think the complaint was not read in context
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 11:27 a.m.
Basically even if the search was lawful the manner in which it was conducted can be an unlawful seizure—i.e., smashing your windows without even making contact and then automatically presuming reasonable cause over a parking violation
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 11:28 a.m.
I take issue with this in that both of your opinions take a great deal of time analyzing the Burger case law but not the case law that I actually relied on
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 11:34 a.m.
Most of all I would like to know what gave him reasonable cause in this case
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 11:34 a.m.
That was not addressed by either of you
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 11:34 a.m.
Instead it was just a rehash of the long history of commercial regulation
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 11:36 a.m.
And this order basically goes from he's immune in all contexts here to he wouldn't be immune if we alleged acts in excess of the regulatory scheme which we did
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 11:39 a.m.
The manner of the search was extreme and that matters most here. I cited a lot of case law on that and I premised around that. And so does the fact that he can't generate reasonable cause for himself under these circumstances
meowiittenmeowiitten
It wasn’t about the administrative exception at all
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 11:48 a.m.
I'd have to disagree with that because the facts places it within the scope of the administrative search doctrine by default
SinghskiSinghski
I'd have to disagree with that because the facts places it within the scope of the administrative search doctrine by default
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 11:49 a.m.
What fact though
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 11:54 a.m.
Oh this certiorari not notice
meowiittenmeowiitten
What fact though
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 11:55 a.m.
I mean the plaintiff was engaged in the transaction of commerce
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 11:56 a.m.
Well as I explained there was two incidents in question here
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 11:56 a.m.
and the justification used was 6 M.S.C. 4 § 2202.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 11:57 a.m.
First was the initial seizure, where he was in the store, and then the officer just starts smashing the shit out of his windows while he's feet away, presumably to access the vehicle
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 11:57 a.m.
Then he goes outside
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 11:57 a.m.
I mean I'd be willing to perhaps entertain a motion to reconsider
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 11:57 a.m.
Then he moves the car back into a proper parking spot
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 11:57 a.m.
And then the officer goes
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 11:57 a.m.
"I'm gonna search it regardless"
SinghskiSinghski
I mean I'd be willing to perhaps entertain a motion to reconsider
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 11:58 a.m.
I don't know I mean I'd basically be copy and pasting what I already said
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 11:58 a.m.
Sure
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 11:58 a.m.
I'll have a look again maybe I was coded
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 11:58 a.m.
maybe I was faded
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 12:01 p.m.
@meowiitten but still prepare your writ of certiorari
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 12:02 p.m.
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
@singhski @actxrz
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 12:03 p.m.
For those reasons alone, any reliance on New York v. Burger and the regulatory statute, 6 M.S.C. 4 § 2202, is actually fundamentally misplaced. The first seizure—namely, the smashing of Plaintiff’s windows and physical interference with the vehicle—was not carried out pursuant to any regulatory authority, but rather stemmed from a dispute over alleged illegal parking. Compl. ¶¶ 8–10. The second seizure, which involved the warrantless search of the vehicle’s cargo compartments, occurred only after the officer presumed that the vehicle’s parking violation gave him cause to search. But that assertion conflates parking enforcement with regulatory inspection authority and ignores the basic requirement that such searches must be supported by “reasonable cause” and conducted in a reasonable manner. See supra Section I.A. No provision of 6 M.S.C. 4 § 2202 authorizes warrantless entry or destruction of property based solely on a parking violation.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 12:04 p.m.
And of course the complaint names both seizures, or what we interpret as two seperate seizures. So If it finds one seizure was allowed but not the other, you can just pick from the buffet
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 12:05 p.m.
The first seizure is more about whether it was reasonable or conducted in a disproportionate matter which we can show by evidence it was not reasonable
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 12:06 p.m.
nvm I was bugging
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 12:06 p.m.
The second seizure is more about whether (1) a parking violation is "reasonable cause," (2) whether that was so attenuated from the first seizure, and (3) Burgers
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 12:46 p.m.
@meowiitten @actxrz I will be vacating the previous judgment
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 12:46 p.m.
the opinion will be out eventually, but know it has been vacated, so we will be moving on(edited)
meowiittenmeowiitten
For those reasons alone, any reliance on New York v. Burger and the regulatory statute, 6 M.S.C. 4 § 2202, is actually fundamentally misplaced. The first seizure—namely, th...
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 03:43 p.m.
ok
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 03:43 p.m.
so
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 03:43 p.m.
sado
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 03:44 p.m.
how do u want cops to move vehicles that are unlawfully parked?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 03:44 p.m.
You make contact with the driver
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 03:44 p.m.
This is irrelevant
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 03:44 p.m.
The driver was feet away
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 03:44 p.m.
This was clearly unreasonable
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 03:44 p.m.
And he didn't even stop when he came out
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 03:45 p.m.
And it wasn't obstructing any roadway
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 03:46 p.m.
If it was blocking a roadway or it was an emergency I can see smashing the windows and moving it
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 03:46 p.m.
But that wasn't the case here
SinghskiSinghski
@meowiitten @actxrz I will be vacating the previous judgment
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 03:51 p.m.
u know ur the judge right
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 03:52 p.m.
y are u being bullied
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 03:52 p.m.
all
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 03:52 p.m.
lmao
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 03:52 p.m.
i’m highly confident the government wins on appeal as well
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 03:52 p.m.
this is another case where dado can’t differentiate roblox from real life
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 03:53 p.m.
there are functions of the game and practices that have been in place seen 2017 or whenever OG mayflower was a think
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 03:53 p.m.
these are practices and functions that have been passed to other rostates
meowiittenmeowiitten
The driver was feet away
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 03:53 p.m.
he was hiding behind the truck
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 03:54 p.m.
I would prefer we have a hearing
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 03:54 p.m.
doing wtv he needed to do
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 03:54 p.m.
there are few of the facts I'm a bit confused about
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 03:54 p.m.
also on ROBLOX I can't do asynchronous I don't like it
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 03:54 p.m.
i can’t do roblox
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 03:54 p.m.
I can't organize my thoughts in the game
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 03:54 p.m.
for the next few days
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 03:54 p.m.
we’re remodeling the house so i gotta help clear everything out n stuff
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 03:55 p.m.
@singhski Do you want to see the video or not really
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 03:55 p.m.
I have seen
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 03:55 p.m.
ok the dude
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 03:55 p.m.
or if there is another
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 03:55 p.m.
was behind the truck
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 03:55 p.m.
I know actxrz but it doesn't matter
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 03:55 p.m.
because its out of what facts have been alleged
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 03:55 p.m.
and it’s not like there’s body cam footage we can look at to see if the dude was reasonably in view
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 03:55 p.m.
with MTDs
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 03:55 p.m.
he wasn’t
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 03:56 p.m.
he was behind the truck
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 03:56 p.m.
so you need to send the facts which prove what you are saying is true
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 03:56 p.m.
facts need to be disputed later on
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 03:56 p.m.
via trial
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 03:56 p.m.
My main confusion was about the purpose of the search, I thought it was a commercial vehicle inspection
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 03:56 p.m.
it was
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 03:56 p.m.
but after re reading the language of the complaint
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 03:56 p.m.
It alleges that he conducted the search randomly
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 03:56 p.m.
for no reason
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 03:56 p.m.
which stemmed from the vehicle being unlawfully parked, giving cause
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 03:57 p.m.
That isn't enough cause
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 03:57 p.m.
i think idk
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 03:57 p.m.
i’d have to ask the defendant
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 03:57 p.m.
i’m js assuming rn
SinghskiSinghski
That isn't enough cause
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 03:57 p.m.
and this was another issue I wanted @meowiitten to mention, and why it would fail to state a claim otherwise
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 03:57 p.m.
but that wasn't the issue alleged in the complaint at all
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 03:57 p.m.
maybe smth else happened, maybe there was a bolo, i’m not sure
SinghskiSinghski
and this was another issue I wanted @meowiitten to mention, and why it would fail to state a claim otherwise
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 03:58 p.m.
Perhaps I could have made this more clear
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 03:58 p.m.
essentially, because I thought it was about a commercial vehicle inspection, I wanted Sado to explain that he did not have reasonable cause consistent with the statutory language
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 03:58 p.m.
and my reasoning for the ruling was, okay, because he hasn't, his claim falls flat
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 03:59 p.m.
Though I would say @actxrz your case is stronger at trial where you can make this objections
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 04:00 p.m.
and explain why it was a with-cause vehicle inspection pursuant to 6 M.S.C. 4 § 2202 if that makes sense
singhskisinghski used
/pretrial
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-07-30 04:01 p.m.
Pretrial Schedule
Discovery will be taken care of separately during the pretrial period.

Pre-trial motions will be accepted until Thursday, August 7, 2025 at 4:01 p.m. or 6 months ago.

The pre-trial period will end on Saturday, August 9, 2025 at 4:01 p.m. or 6 months ago.
SinghskiSinghski
@meowiitten @actxrz I will be vacating the previous judgment
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 04:01 p.m.
Ruling will be out eventually, but it isn't my top priority right now, it will likely just be a reiteration of what Sado has already said
SinghskiSinghski
and explain why it was a with-cause vehicle inspection pursuant to 6 M.S.C. 4 § 2202 if that makes sense
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 04:03 p.m.
ok i dont think ur looking at this right
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 04:03 p.m.
trucking/transportation is a pervasively regulated business
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 04:03 p.m.
Which I mentioned in my ruling
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 04:04 p.m.
but with MTDs we have to construe the facts in a certain way which makes the entire issue not about vehicle inspections
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 04:04 p.m.
ive cited numerous cases in my mtd that conclude that the business has an extremely diminished expectation of privacy
SinghskiSinghski
but with MTDs we have to construe the facts in a certain way which makes the entire issue not about vehicle inspections
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 04:04 p.m.
mhm i understand
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 04:04 p.m.
Unless you can point to me the facts which suggest he was conducting a vehicle inspection pursuant to the statutory authority(edited)
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 04:05 p.m.
an unlawfully parked truck constitutes a traffic/public safety violation
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 04:05 p.m.
which itself provides cause for immediate government intervention
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 04:06 p.m.
including the act of moving and inspecting the truck
SinghskiSinghski
Unless you can point to me the facts which suggest he was conducting a vehicle inspection pursuant to the statutory authority(edited)
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 04:06 p.m.
That is the assumption I made glossing through the complaint
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 04:06 p.m.
Image 1 (left), he steps out of his car; image 2 (right), 3 seconds later, he walks to the window of the building and spots Plaintiff
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 04:06 p.m.
5 seconds later he smashes the passenger-side window
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 04:07 p.m.
And then does the rest
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 04:07 p.m.
The rear window, then driver side
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 04:07 p.m.
Then before he can enter the vehicle, Plaintiff stops him and he moves his car into a parking spot
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 04:07 p.m.
Brief convo, then the "I'm gonna search it regardless"
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 04:08 p.m.
Plaintiff is alleging that this wasn't a commercial vehicle inspection
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 04:08 p.m.
it was just an unwarranted search @actxrz
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 04:08 p.m.
But under the guise of a commercial vehicle inspection
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 04:08 p.m.
I don't even think the search popped into his head until after he moved the vehicle
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 04:09 p.m.
He just thought it was automatic
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 04:09 p.m.
But that's all speculative
actxrzactxrz
including the act of moving and inspecting the truck
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 04:10 p.m.
the gov's interest in maintaining road safety and ensuring compliance with traffic laws permits officers to act without warrant in such scenarios
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 04:10 p.m.
You have to qualify that statement significantly
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 04:11 p.m.
under 6 M.S.C. 4 § 2202, commercial vehicles operating in public transit or goods delivery are subject to administrative inspection schemes designed to ensure regulatory compliance
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 04:11 p.m.
when such a vehicle is found unlawfully parked
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 04:11 p.m.
that status supplies the "cause" necessary under the statute
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 04:11 p.m.
to justify inspection
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 04:12 p.m.
@meowiitten but yeah I mean the rest doesn't matter right now
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 04:12 p.m.
Even if the search was somehow lawful, which we hold it was not, it can be conducted in unlawful ways that give rise to an action such as this
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 04:12 p.m.
But what I will say is that these inspections are intended to be a surprise
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 04:13 p.m.
though, again, absolutely NONE of this matters right now
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 04:16 p.m.
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 04:16 p.m.
with a truck in the way he wouldnt have seen plaintiff
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 04:16 p.m.
his head was faced this way
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 04:17 p.m.
to be bale to have seen plaintiff he head would had to have been turned this way
actxrzactxrz
to be bale to have seen plaintiff he head would had to have been turned this way
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 04:17 p.m.
Are you ingame
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 04:17 p.m.
SinghskiSinghski
Are you ingame
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 04:17 p.m.
yes
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 04:17 p.m.
im gonna redo these pics
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 04:17 p.m.
with a truck
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 04:17 p.m.
if @meowiitten can get in
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 04:17 p.m.
We can handle this quickly
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 04:17 p.m.
bring a box truck or smth
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 04:17 p.m.
if u have one
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 04:18 p.m.
I mean a quick hearing
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 04:18 p.m.
ID: 2980-4586
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 04:18 p.m.
A hearing on what
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 04:18 p.m.
15-30 minutes max
meowiittenmeowiitten
A hearing on what
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 04:18 p.m.
the MTR
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 04:18 p.m.
i havent even read the motion
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 04:18 p.m.
I don't like talking in game because it just censors everything I say
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 04:18 p.m.
He didn't read my reply either lol
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 04:18 p.m.
that too
actxrzactxrz
i havent even read the motion
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 04:18 p.m.
It is the same as his original reply(edited)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 04:19 p.m.
He said he didn't read it which is why he doesn't know what I'm talking about
meowiittenmeowiitten
I don't like talking in game because it just censors everything I say
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 04:19 p.m.
Just type anything that is censored here
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 04:23 p.m.
@meowiitten where are u
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 04:23 p.m.
i want u to see the same thing
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 04:23 p.m.
as the defendant
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 04:23 p.m.
Okay then if he didn't see him do you realize that makes it worse
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 04:23 p.m.
He made no attempt to find the driver and did all of this within the span of 5 seconds
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 04:23 p.m.
Lololo
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 04:23 p.m.
he did
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 04:24 p.m.
thats why he walked pass
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 04:24 p.m.
Clearly he didn't
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 04:24 p.m.
Because he didn't see the guy who was behind a window
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 04:24 p.m.
You are now distorting the case
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 04:24 p.m.
Behind this theory
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 04:24 p.m.
This is a factual thing at trial
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 04:24 p.m.
Not a legal defense
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 04:49 p.m.
@singhski i ask that we wait to proceed to pre-trial before the mtd is ruled on
actxrzactxrz
@singhski i ask that we wait to proceed to pre-trial before the mtd is ruled on
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 04:51 p.m.
as I said, I am denying it
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 04:51 p.m.
unless you want to appeal
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 04:51 p.m.
for that purpose I will write it now
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 04:51 p.m.
i wanna see why u denied qualified immunity
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 04:52 p.m.
or if u can js explain here
actxrzactxrz
i wanna see why u denied qualified immunity
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 04:54 p.m.
Simple, because the facts allege that he violated the 4th amendment
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 05:03 p.m.
QI is not defeated merely bc the plaintiff alleges a 4A violation
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 05:04 p.m.
the inquiry is not whether the alleged conduct would violate the const in the abstract
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 05:04 p.m.
but whether clearly established law put the defendant on notice that his conduct was unlawful under the specific circumstances he faced
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 05:07 p.m.
in this case, plaintiff has not identified any precedent (controlling or otherwise) that clearly established the unlawfulness of conducting a regulatory search of a commercial vehicle that was unlawfully parked, potentionally in violation of traffic laws, or commercial transport regulations
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 05:07 p.m.
the complaint alleges facts, but those facts must be tested against whether the officer's actions were objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 05:07 p.m.
no such showing has been made
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 05:07 p.m.
also
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 05:07 p.m.
respectfully
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 05:08 p.m.
QI is not meant to be a jury question whenever a 4A violation is alleged
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 05:08 p.m.
its an immunity from suit, not just liability, and should be resolved before trial where, as here, no clearly established law is cited that would have placed the alleged unconstitutionality "beyond debate"
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 05:08 p.m.
The only precedent you point to is New York v. Burger which does a good job at rehashing the law on the admin exception but nothing else
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 05:08 p.m.
So.
actxrzactxrz
QI is not defeated merely bc the plaintiff alleges a 4A violation
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 05:13 p.m.
it is when we're discussing a MTD
singhski
singhski 2025-07-30 05:13 p.m.
because as I have said time and time again........
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 05:14 p.m.
ok wtv
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 05:14 p.m.
ill accept my loss
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 05:15 p.m.
btw im not responding to his mtr cuz theres no point lol
clerkFlowBotclerkFlow
Click to see command.
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-30 05:16 p.m.
@AlbertBlackwell @singhski could either of u pin this pleaseeee
singhski pinned a message to this channel.2026-01-18 03:02 p.m.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-30 05:17 p.m.
With this I will probably move for summary judgment
singhskisinghski used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-08-12 05:59 p.m.
Case Modified
@singhski has added @Ocazius to the case channel.
singhski
singhski 2025-08-12 05:59 p.m.
Assigned to you @Ocazius
Ocazius
Ocazius 2025-08-12 06:08 p.m.
@meowiitten @actxrz
Ocazius
Ocazius 2025-08-12 06:09 p.m.
Pre-trial ended 3 days ago
actxrz
actxrz 2025-08-12 06:09 p.m.
HELLO
Ocazius
Ocazius 2025-08-12 06:09 p.m.
Are we awaiting the previous ruling first?
Ocazius
Ocazius 2025-08-12 06:09 p.m.
Why did you ignore the pretrial period..
OcaziusOcazius
@meowiitten @actxrz
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-12 06:09 p.m.
I think I said I moved for summary judgment no one responded
actxrz
actxrz 2025-08-12 06:09 p.m.
theres been a lot going on...
actxrz
actxrz 2025-08-12 06:10 p.m.
pls add the acting solicitor general
actxrz
actxrz 2025-08-12 06:10 p.m.
im not the sg anymore
actxrz
actxrz 2025-08-12 06:10 p.m.
@Nationgreat
meowiittenmeowiitten
With this I will probably move for summary judgment
Ocazius
Ocazius 2025-08-12 06:11 p.m.
You either move for summary judgement or you don't, there is no probably.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-12 06:11 p.m.
Oh ok
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-12 06:11 p.m.
Thanks buddy
actxrz
actxrz 2025-08-12 06:11 p.m.
ok so neither of us submitted anything.. just extend pretrial :/
actxrz
actxrz 2025-08-12 06:11 p.m.
if sado is ok with that
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-12 06:11 p.m.
Let me ask the plaintiff something
actxrzactxrz used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-08-12 06:11 p.m.
Case Modified
@actxrz has added @Nationgreat to the case channel.
actxrz
actxrz 2025-08-12 06:12 p.m.
acting solicitor general nationgreat :👍:
Ocazius
Ocazius 2025-08-12 06:12 p.m.
Withb that being said, do you wish to move for summary judgement?
Ocazius
Ocazius 2025-08-12 06:12 p.m.
Hold on my wifi is exploding
OcaziusOcazius
Withb that being said, do you wish to move for summary judgement?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-12 06:12 p.m.
Yeah sure since the motion to dismiss was denied
Ocazius
Ocazius 2025-08-12 06:12 p.m.
@actxrz I am unaware of your current status of employment with the SGO's office; does this mean that you are withdrawing from the case entirely or simply demoting yourself to cocounsel
actxrz
actxrz 2025-08-12 06:12 p.m.
i was the sg, i resigned
Ocazius
Ocazius 2025-08-12 06:13 p.m.
Alright thanks for letting me know
actxrz
actxrz 2025-08-12 06:13 p.m.
let me ask dero
meowiittenmeowiitten
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS @singhski @actxrz
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-12 06:13 p.m.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1M5Rc8_aFQHEHDg0-VGQwa3pQGUIer9eL/view?usp=sharing @Ocazius I'll just submit these as supplement to my oral motion
actxrz
actxrz 2025-08-12 06:13 p.m.
what he wants to do
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-12 06:13 p.m.
And the motion to dismiss denial
actxrz
actxrz 2025-08-12 06:14 p.m.
@Ocazius can you rule on the mtd
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-12 06:14 p.m.
It was denied
actxrz
actxrz 2025-08-12 06:14 p.m.
i'd like a written ruling
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-12 06:14 p.m.
It was denied boy
SinghskiSinghski
@meowiitten @actxrz I will be vacating the previous judgment
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-12 06:14 p.m.
@Ocazius
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-12 06:15 p.m.
He just never did an opinion on it
actxrz
actxrz 2025-08-12 06:15 p.m.
ok there is no reason y QI should be denied here...
actxrz
actxrz 2025-08-12 06:15 p.m.
like at all
actxrz
actxrz 2025-08-12 06:15 p.m.
i dont think there's acc ever been a case here in clark where qi was granted
actxrzactxrz
ok there is no reason y QI should be denied here...
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-12 06:16 p.m.
Well it was
actxrz
actxrz 2025-08-12 06:16 p.m.
ok i'd like to know why...
Ocazius
Ocazius 2025-08-12 06:18 p.m.
Alright so I'm just checking in with Singhski to see if he already wrote the written ruling as to the denial of your dismissal motion.
Ocazius
Ocazius 2025-08-12 06:18 p.m.
Once I get that, it will be forwarded here
actxrz
actxrz 2025-08-12 06:18 p.m.
ok ty
meowiittenmeowiitten
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS @singhski @actxrz
Ocazius
Ocazius 2025-08-12 06:19 p.m.
@meowiitten Just to confirm, this response to the previous dismissal motion is your motion for summary judgement?
OcaziusOcazius
@meowiitten Just to confirm, this response to the previous dismissal motion is your motion for summary judgement?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-12 06:20 p.m.
Yeah I mean I'd basically just throw up the same arguments
Ocazius
Ocazius 2025-08-12 06:21 p.m.
I'd rather have you throw it all into one fresh document, even if it means taking five minutes out of your day to copy and paste the paragraphs, however it is your decision.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-12 06:22 p.m.
Do you 100% need that
actxrz
actxrz 2025-08-12 06:22 p.m.
i think js for the formality of things he should
Ocazius
Ocazius 2025-08-12 06:22 p.m.
I will not oblige it, however I assure you that it will make my life easier to review and then write a ruling, and that is something that all counsel should seek to achieve.
OcaziusOcazius
I will not oblige it, however I assure you that it will make my life easier to review and then write a ruling, and that is something that all counsel should seek to achieve.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-12 06:27 p.m.
I'm pretty sure you can't rule on a SJ motion anyway
singhski
singhski 2025-08-12 06:27 p.m.
Ugh. I will write it tomorrow
singhski
singhski 2025-08-12 06:27 p.m.
and it will be over after
singhski
singhski 2025-08-12 06:28 p.m.
@actxrz Also you are not the Solicitor General.
singhskisinghski used
/remove
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-08-12 06:28 p.m.
Case Modified
@singhski has removed @actxrz from the case channel.
actxrz
actxrz 2025-08-12 06:28 p.m.
bitch
actxrz
actxrz 2025-08-12 06:28 p.m.
i saw what u said
actxrzactxrz
i saw what u said
singhski
singhski 2025-08-12 06:28 p.m.
That was my clerk who accidentally sent that message.
singhski
singhski 2025-08-12 06:28 p.m.
:👍:
actxrz
actxrz 2025-08-12 06:28 p.m.
mhm.. :😒:
singhski
singhski 2025-08-12 06:29 p.m.
But give it some thought
actxrz
actxrz 2025-08-12 06:29 p.m.
nope.
actxrz
actxrz 2025-08-12 06:29 p.m.
dont let haters hate
actxrz
actxrz 2025-08-12 06:49 p.m.
@singhski dero letting me continue this case :🤗:
actxrzactxrz
@singhski dero letting me continue this case :🤗:
singhski
singhski 2025-08-12 06:49 p.m.
I didn't care anyways, but sure.
actxrz
actxrz 2025-08-12 06:49 p.m.
SinghskiSinghski
I didn't care anyways, but sure.
singhski
singhski 2025-08-12 06:50 p.m.
*I didn't care because this case is almost finished
singhski
singhski 2025-08-12 06:50 p.m.
otherwise I would care because I wouldn't want you to represent the state's interests without their consent
actxrz
actxrz 2025-08-23 07:40 p.m.
@meowiitten
actxrz
actxrz 2025-08-25 10:54 p.m.
@singhski hi sado is judge he no represent awesome friended anymore .(edited)
actxrz
actxrz 2025-08-25 10:54 p.m.
Pls rule on mtd we have been waiting patiently
actxrz
actxrz 2025-08-31 11:42 a.m.
@singhski
actxrz
actxrz 2025-08-31 11:42 a.m.
@Ocazius
actxrz
actxrz 2025-08-31 11:43 a.m.
hi sado not plaintiff counsel . can we have ruling on mtd pls
actxrz
actxrz 2025-08-31 11:43 a.m.
full ruling
actxrz
actxrz 2025-09-05 08:56 a.m.
@acarlyle @Ocazius ruling
actxrz
actxrz 2025-09-05 08:56 a.m.
full opinion
Ocazius
Ocazius 2025-09-05 10:28 a.m.
Matthew isn’t a Judge
Ocazius
Ocazius 2025-09-05 10:28 a.m.
I am a Judge but I am not assigned to this case, nor am I even statutorily allowed to rule on MTDs.
actxrz
actxrz 2025-09-05 04:10 p.m.
i think about matthew a lot
actxrz
actxrz 2025-09-05 04:10 p.m.
he’s always in my mind
actxrz
actxrz 2025-09-05 04:10 p.m.
@singhski
OcaziusOcazius
I am a Judge but I am not assigned to this case, nor am I even statutorily allowed to rule on MTDs.
actxrz
actxrz 2025-09-05 04:10 p.m.
blah blah blah
Toby
Toby 2025-09-06 07:52 p.m.
MTD is denied, with the power invested in me by God.

Cc: @singhski
actxrz
actxrz 2025-09-19 08:17 p.m.
ok we already knew that
actxrz
actxrz 2025-09-19 08:17 p.m.
i want the entire written explanation as to why
actxrzactxrz
i want the entire written explanation as to why
singhski
singhski 2025-09-19 08:57 p.m.
not happening let’s continue on
actxrz
actxrz 2025-09-21 03:31 p.m.
krabz
krabz 2025-10-05 06:50 p.m.
Transitional Case

This case existed prior to courts.clarkcounty.site shutting down. This card has been created to keep a record of the case’s existence; however, it will not be updated with past, present, or future case information.
Labels
Civil, Transitional Case
krabz pinned a message to this channel.2026-01-18 03:02 p.m.
michael
michael 2025-10-11 03:11 p.m.
@krabz Your honor I am still awaiting ruling, its been a few months
michaelmichael
@krabz Your honor I am still awaiting ruling, its been a few months
krabz
krabz 2025-10-11 10:33 p.m.
this fukass judge left
krabz
krabz 2025-10-11 10:33 p.m.
all of these need to be reassigned
krabz
krabz 2025-10-11 10:33 p.m.
excuse my language
krabzkrabz
excuse my language
michael
michael 2025-10-11 11:30 p.m.
All good, also the attorney is also gone for the plaintiff
actxrz
actxrz 2025-10-14 12:13 a.m.
@Kezzera@Xerxy@krabz@Your Local Dreamer pls reassign
actxrz
actxrz 2025-11-01 06:44 p.m.
@Kezzera
michael
michael 2025-11-07 11:54 a.m.
@krabz
krabz
krabz 2025-11-07 01:11 p.m.
Case reassigned to Magistrate Judge 40qh, under the supervision of Associate Justice krabzatonin (Ret.). Former District Judge Singhski (Ret.) no longer assigned to the case. (Clerk krabzatonin)
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-11-07 01:12 p.m.
Channel Permissions Synced
Permissions have been synced to Chambers of Magistrate 40qh.
krabzkrabz used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-11-07 01:13 p.m.
Case Modified
@krabz has added @michael to the case channel.
krabzkrabz used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-11-07 01:13 p.m.
Case Modified
@krabz has added @actxrz to the case channel.
krabz
krabz 2025-11-07 01:14 p.m.
where are we with this @michael @actxrz
actxrz
actxrz 2025-11-07 05:58 p.m.
need a ruling on my mtd
actxrz
actxrz 2025-11-07 05:59 p.m.
idk why qualified immunity was denied
krabz
krabz 2025-11-09 01:20 p.m.
okay
michael
michael 2025-11-09 02:04 p.m.
Yeah
🇮🇱🎗️BurkinabéOperator🎗️
🇮🇱🎗️BurkinabéOperator🎗️ 2025-11-09 11:02 p.m.
Ok ruling soon
🇮🇱🎗️BurkinabéOperator🎗️🇮🇱🎗️BurkinabéOperator🎗️
Ok ruling soon
michael
michael 2025-11-09 11:31 p.m.
Thank you your honor
🇮🇱🎗️BurkinabéOperator🎗️
🇮🇱🎗️BurkinabéOperator🎗️ 2025-11-10 01:25 a.m.
Expect one this evening
michael
michael 2025-11-10 10:44 a.m.
Understood, thank you
krabz pinned a message to this channel.2026-01-18 03:02 p.m.
krabz pinned a message to this channel.2026-01-18 03:02 p.m.
krabz pinned a message to this channel.2026-01-18 03:02 p.m.
krabz pinned a message to this channel.2026-01-18 03:02 p.m.
actxrzactxrz
need a ruling on my mtd
krabz
krabz 2025-11-10 08:23 p.m.
where is it
krabz
krabz 2025-11-10 08:23 p.m.
i pinned everything i could find
krabz
krabz 2025-11-10 08:23 p.m.
(ik singhski vacated his old ruling)
🇮🇱🎗️BurkinabéOperator🎗️
🇮🇱🎗️BurkinabéOperator🎗️ 2025-11-10 10:18 p.m.
Hi
🇮🇱🎗️BurkinabéOperator🎗️🇮🇱🎗️BurkinabéOperator🎗️
Hi
michael
michael 2025-11-10 10:48 p.m.
Hello, your honor
🇮🇱🎗️BurkinabéOperator🎗️
🇮🇱🎗️BurkinabéOperator🎗️ 2025-11-10 10:53 p.m.
Due to some unforeseen issues I think your expectation of when ruling will arrive should extend to tomorrow unless I grind and get it done by midnight
🇮🇱🎗️BurkinabéOperator🎗️🇮🇱🎗️BurkinabéOperator🎗️
Due to some unforeseen issues I think your expectation of when ruling will arrive should extend to tomorrow unless I grind and get it done by midnight
michael
michael 2025-11-11 12:32 a.m.
No worries take your time your honor
actxrz
actxrz 2025-11-11 05:54 a.m.
did you find it
actxrzactxrz
QI is not defeated merely bc the plaintiff alleges a 4A violation
actxrz
actxrz 2025-11-11 05:55 a.m.
pls see these arguments as well
actxrzactxrz
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED PURSUANT TO RULE 13(b) OF THE MAYFLOWER RULES FOR CIVIL PROCEDURE View the motion...
actxrz
actxrz 2025-11-11 05:56 a.m.
here
🇮🇱🎗️BurkinabéOperator🎗️
🇮🇱🎗️BurkinabéOperator🎗️ 2025-11-11 01:17 p.m.
Yes I saw it
michael
michael 2025-11-12 09:14 p.m.
Your honor will there be a ruling today?
michaelmichael
Your honor will there be a ruling today?
🇮🇱🎗️BurkinabéOperator🎗️
🇮🇱🎗️BurkinabéOperator🎗️ 2025-11-13 02:11 a.m.
I am clearing up some procedural doubts I have
🇮🇱🎗️BurkinabéOperator🎗️🇮🇱🎗️BurkinabéOperator🎗️
I am clearing up some procedural doubts I have
michael
michael 2025-11-13 02:13 a.m.
Understood your honor
🇮🇱🎗️BurkinabéOperator🎗️
🇮🇱🎗️BurkinabéOperator🎗️ 2025-11-13 02:15 a.m.
@Enxcis Do you have representation for this case
🇮🇱🎗️BurkinabéOperator🎗️
🇮🇱🎗️BurkinabéOperator🎗️ 2025-11-13 02:16 a.m.
If this case were to go to trial, would the Solicitor General still be representing Defendant? @actxrz @michael
actxrz
actxrz 2025-11-13 05:55 a.m.
i don’t see why it would but yes
🇮🇱🎗️BurkinabéOperator🎗️
🇮🇱🎗️BurkinabéOperator🎗️ 2025-11-13 09:53 a.m.
Irrelevant
🇮🇱🎗️BurkinabéOperator🎗️
🇮🇱🎗️BurkinabéOperator🎗️ 2025-11-13 09:54 a.m.
If I ask a similar question in the future please just say yes or no
bommes
bommes 2025-11-13 11:49 a.m.
@🇮🇱🎗️BurkinabéOperator🎗️ I just realised magistrate judges can’t rule on MTDs per state code regulations
bommes
bommes 2025-11-13 11:50 a.m.
So seeing as it was vacated aka reversed/nullified, the motion should be dealt with by @krabz
bommesbommes
@🇮🇱🎗️BurkinabéOperator🎗️ I just realised magistrate judges can’t rule on MTDs per state code regulations
krabz
krabz 2025-11-13 11:50 a.m.
i bypass
krabzkrabz
i bypass
bommes
bommes 2025-11-13 11:50 a.m.
u can do that?
krabzkrabz
bommes
bommes 2025-11-13 11:51 a.m.
bro has a special status
bommes
bommes 2025-11-13 11:51 a.m.
very well lol forget what I said earlier @🇮🇱🎗️BurkinabéOperator🎗️
bommes
bommes 2025-11-13 11:52 a.m.
you can rule on the MTD as you would if you were a DCJ and just relay your finding to krabz
actxrzactxrz
i don’t see why it would but yes
krabz
krabz 2025-11-13 01:40 p.m.
wait so
krabz
krabz 2025-11-13 01:40 p.m.
the MTD was granted, sado filed MTR, singhski accepted it and vacated the MTD granting, and now you want the MTD ruled on again?
krabz
krabz 2025-11-13 01:41 p.m.
or am i missing something
michael
michael 2025-11-13 02:45 p.m.
Singshski said, "the opinion will be out eventually, but know it has been vacated, so we will be moving on"
michael
michael 2025-11-13 02:45 p.m.
Believe we still need the written ruling
michael
michael 2025-11-13 02:45 p.m.
and QI was denied over a allegation as well
krabzkrabz
the MTD was granted, sado filed MTR, singhski accepted it and vacated the MTD granting, and now you want the MTD ruled on again?
actxrz
actxrz 2025-11-13 03:47 p.m.
what robert said
krabz
krabz 2025-11-13 04:37 p.m.
oh ok
michael
michael 2025-11-17 03:37 p.m.
Will there be a ruling today?
michael
michael 2025-11-17 03:37 p.m.
@actxrz ^
🇮🇱🎗️BurkinabéOperator🎗️
🇮🇱🎗️BurkinabéOperator🎗️ 2025-11-17 06:17 p.m.
uhh
🇮🇱🎗️BurkinabéOperator🎗️
🇮🇱🎗️BurkinabéOperator🎗️ 2025-11-17 06:17 p.m.
y not
🇮🇱🎗️BurkinabéOperator🎗️
🇮🇱🎗️BurkinabéOperator🎗️ 2025-11-17 06:17 p.m.
ill work on it
michael
michael 2025-11-17 06:28 p.m.
@🇮🇱🎗️BurkinabéOperator🎗️ Thank you your honor
🇮🇱🎗️BurkinabéOperator🎗️
🇮🇱🎗️BurkinabéOperator🎗️ 2025-11-18 12:54 a.m.
ORDER: Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim is GRANTED; accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that all claims are dismissed with prejudice, and it is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the search of Plaintiff's commercial vehicle was a lawful administrative inspection conducted pursuant to the statutory authority granted by 6 M.S.C. 4 §§ 2201-2202; that the search falls squarely within the Administrative Search Exception to the warrant requirement as recognized in New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691 (1987); that the Plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that the Defendant's conduct, including the minimum use of force to gain entry, was wholly outside the statutory frameworks or constitutional bounds; that the Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a plausible claim for unlawful search and seizure under 5 M.S.C. 1 § 3101.5; and that the Defendant RobertRosenthal is entitled to Qualified Immunity because no clearly established law prohibited his actions.

It is further ORDERED that the Plaintiff's second claim for relief, Trespass to Chattels, is dismissed because the search was lawful, thereby negating the essential element of unauthorized interference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed by Magistrate Judge 40qh
Entered 11/18/2025
🇮🇱🎗️BurkinabéOperator🎗️
🇮🇱🎗️BurkinabéOperator🎗️ 2025-11-18 12:54 a.m.
@michael @Enxcis @actxrz
michael
michael 2025-11-18 01:03 a.m.
Thank you your honor @🇮🇱🎗️BurkinabéOperator🎗️
michael
michael 2025-11-18 01:04 a.m.
Have a great evening to everyone
🇮🇱🎗️BurkinabéOperator🎗️
🇮🇱🎗️BurkinabéOperator🎗️ 2025-11-18 01:12 a.m.
@Prothonotary's Office Please archive
profileprofile used
/transcript
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-11-18 01:13 a.m.
Creating transcript..
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-11-18 01:13 a.m.
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-11-18 01:13 a.m.
Channel Permissions Synced
Permissions have been synced to Volume XIII.
Exported 422 messages